This user believes, along with Edward R. Murrow, that finding the real truth of the matter is more important than seeming mainstream when slant passes for neutrality, and narrative for reality.
This user believes, along with George Orwell, that breaking the rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous is a virtue.
This user believes that disagreeing Derek Jeter is a bad infielder is not the equivalent of Holocaust denial, nor are most disagreements.
This user thinks despite what it says on the No Original Research page, someone will ask you to cite a reference that Paris is in France, then turn around and say "everyone knows" some other fact, so no citation is necessary.
Getting along with other editors is overrated, but the biggest clue to whether it's even possible to do so is whether they are into selective perception or not.
This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias report facts. Not agreed upon fictions, but facts. And not facts without context, but facts within a clear context of other relevant facts. I understand why the Wikipedia rules are what they are, and most of the time I support the enforcement of those rules. But when people hide behind those rules to misrepresent something on here, that bugs me.
There are three Wikipedia rules that interest me more than the others when those situations arise: the rule called WP:WIKILAWYERING, the rule called WP:IAR and the rule called WP:GAME.
